Thanks for posting these notes Brian. I agree that some of it is embryonic thinking and ought to be teased out further, but the core of it seems right to me.
You mentioned that many think we can be certain of logical and mathematical deductions, wile most everything else must remain uncertain. So at least it seems there is a continuum which must include some uncertainty. I would agree that there is more uncertainty than certainty in the important issues of human life, relationships and meaning.
The most interesting thing here is that, given the assumptions you stated - ie. that there is a god who is personally interested in humans, you have gone on to draw the opposite conclusion to that drawn by most religious folk who share that assumption.
The pivot point of this swing seems to be fear. You mentioned the fear of the unknown and the unknowable and that it drives religion, as well as science and art.
Here our discussion about the nature of God becomes particularly pertinent I think. The question becomes, If there is a God and we cannot be certain about that being or about what our response to such a being ought to be, then what kind of being is it? If we are loaded up with preconceptions about a judgemental and condemning character who casts a light of inadequacy over humanity and our own self-perceptions, if sin and evil are the issues that religion must alleviate, then uncertainty does not fit into the picture. Uncertainty erodes the whole system because we become uncertain about our sinfulness and therefore our need of a priest etc.
The religious institution must establish itself as the vendor of truth. It helps us by telling us the truths we cannot otherwise know. It usually appeals to an authoritative scripture as it's basis for such authority and then elevates to sainthood, certain figures, (usually posthumously to avoid any dispute) who can add weight to these claims. Religion, by it's nature seems to need certainty. So is it all fabricated?
We have spoken about this adopted certainty, where someone you respect tells you that they are certain and you become certain too without any substantial reasons behind that feeling. A social environment where this adopted conviction is commonly shared, strengthens the conviction that we are right and bolsters group identity and cohesion. In this setting, certainty becomes very important for the group because it starts to define it and its purpose - usually to share those truths with those who are still ignorant.
It's a long way to fall from there if one becomes aware of pervasive uncertainty. You lose your social identity, confidence in those who have lead you and your purpose in the world. And what do you get in return?
An adventure, a sense of safety and freedom. Why? Well first you have to build a picture of a god-being who doesn't mind you experimenting, being wrong, who offers no special formula for his/her approval, who must therefore be more natural and organic in expectations/relationships.?
You are forced to realise that the billions of people who follow other religious convictions are likely to be as right and as wrong and perhaps even as loved by god as you are. This is the first chance you have had to see God as a merciful gracious and just being. I contend that it will be the first time you can intellectually "love" God.
You realise that some of the doctrines and ideas that have produced dysfunction in your life and character should simply be abandoned and that having done that, you can find a better way. The places where you have been wrong, either by your own assumptions or by the errors you were spoon-fed, are all areas of potential. Not the potential of being absolutely right and finding the best way, but of growing toward being truer and better in an ongoing process.
This is a much better outlook on life in my view. Yes it is requires and continually reinforces an attitude of humility. It opens discussions of true discovery between a much broader group of people an ideas. It replaces guilt an fear with wonder and security.
Has anyone else experienced any of this?
The doctrine of God's 'intended uncertainty'
I am also growing to love this stuff!
Your words above are great. Clear, succinct, loaded with content - and obviously personally felt.
In particular your summary of the personal consequences of coming to see the idea of pervasive human uncertainty as a foundational (and necessary) part of God's intententions.
As you say, this idea is devastating to the 'self-interests' of most institutional religions.
But is this
'doctrine (I prefer 'idea')
of God's intended uncertainty' true? (Remembering that claiming something is true, for us, is claiming that that thing is more likely to be true than not!)
I would like to keep working on the answer to this. We can look more closely at the reasoning we are using to support it. We can also look at the biblical texts to see what light they may shed on it.
Any ideas on the best way to do this in amongst all the other stuff going on?